-------------------------------------------------------
Comments

When I load your grammar into the LKB, it still reports four
warnings about redefined lexical entries.  You should look into
this.  (The warnings scroll up past the top of the Lkb Top
window, but you can use the scroll bar to see them.)

	The ditransives and transitives with optional object now load
	in the grammar, but still no parses for them yet.

I'd love to help debug this, but need an example sentence to
play with.


	In Icelandic the questions are former by inverting the subject
	and verb:
	
	Elska-ar kott-ur-inn hund-inn?
	love.3sg cat.MASC-NOM.MASC-the.NOM.MASC dog.ACC.MASC-the.ACC.MASC
	'does the cat love the dog?'
	
	The customization script already provided the types and rules to
	account for this.

The assignment asked you to describe what those rules/types were doing.

In addition, I tried  parsing "Kona borda-ar helst mat-inn"
got two parses, since the INT rule could fire or not.  The problem,
I think, is that the feature INV is left underspecified on verb-lex,
so the int-cl type can take any old S as its daughter.  Making verb-lex
[INV -] should do the trick.

 There are three imperative forms for the verbs. One for 2sg
 and 2pl as well as one for 1pl:

	Hoppa
	jump.2sg.imp
	
	Hoppa-id
	jump.2pl.imp
	
	Hoppa-um
	jump.1pl.imp
	
 Due to this phenomena, I didn't constrain the imp-head-opt-phrase to be
 2nd person. The person distinction was taken care of in the imperative
 lexical rules. This phenomena still doesn't parse. When I look at the 
 parse chart, it shows that imperative lexical rule applied, but it
 doesn't form the phrase.

It doesn't parse because you didn't create an instance of 
imp-head-opt-phrase in rules.tdl.  (You could have discovered this
by trying interactive unification. When you got to the step where
you get the feature structure for the rule, you would have noticed
its absence from the menu you get from View > Grammar rule.)

When I added such an instance, and tried parsing "Hoppa", I got
three parses for it.  This is because the other lexical rules that
produce that form aren't puttin anything in as the value of FORM.
Thus they, too, are compatible with the imp-head-opt-subj rule.